This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Nobody is saying CEOs are greedy. We're just saying they should pay a higher tax rate.

As for HRC, hypocrisy is not supporting positions contrary to your own personal interests. That's the definition of civic virtue. HRC supports raising taxes on her income class for the good of the country.

The idea that taxation rates should be used to "fix" income inequality, touted by those like Sanders, is akin to establishing a national maximum wage. Playing Robin Hood with the tax code to achieve balance between rock/sports stars, those with extremely high incomes, and the average workers will result in more "loopholes" to protect those like HRC. If such a concept were ever actually proposed as law you can rest assured that it would not include tax code simplification - even Obama dared not alter 98.6% of the "Bush" income tax rates. Trying to finance a nation by taxing only the 1% more will never actually be implemented and everyone, including HRC, knows that.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

The idea that taxation rates should be used to "fix" income inequality, touted by those like Sanders, is akin to establishing a national maximum wage. Playing Robin Hood with the tax code to achieve balance between rock/sports stars, those with extremely high incomes, and the average workers will result in more "loopholes" to protect those like HRC. If such a concept were ever actually proposed as law you can rest assured that it would not include tax code simplification - even Obama dared not alter 98.6% of the "Bush" income tax rates. Trying to finance a nation by taxing only the 1% more will never actually be implemented and everyone, including HRC, knows that.

I don't know where your 98.6% of the Bush income tax rates comes from. What I do know is that the upper bracket tax rates were allowed to expire and the ones on lower and middle income Americans were extended.

Bank robber Willie Sutton, was once asked by a reporter's why he robbed banks. Sutton replied, "because that's where the money is." Likewise, income in America is concentrated in the top 1%. If one is interested in raising revenue, that's where you mine.

The point of addressing income inequality with tax policy is stop and prevent dynasties. This is a particular point in Thomas Piketty's relatively new book. Piketty shows that they have in fact concentrated in the past. It's the same as the analysis of La Belle Époque France, with its dominance by inherited wealth. And for every Bill Gates, there are many families that do all they can to perpetuate dynastic wealth. Remember, the 10 wealthiest Americans include 4 Waltons and two Kochs.

One subsection in Piketty's book is titled "Confiscatory Taxation of Excess Incomes: An American Invention"; he shows that America actually pioneered very high taxes on the rich:

When we look at the history of progressive taxation in the twentieth century, it is striking to see how far out in front Britain and the United States were, especially the latter, which invented the confiscatory tax on “excessive” incomes and fortunes.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

You must be joking. The poor spend a higher percentage of their income because that's what's necessary to pay for essentials. The rich have enough extra income to save most of it.

I think you'll find, with just a little investigation, that many of the poor are paying for much more than "essentials". There are common factors which cause people to remain poor all their lives and they have nothing to do with others being rich.

I think you'll find, with just a little investigation, that many of the poor are paying for much more than "essentials". There are common factors which cause people to remain poor all their lives and they have nothing to do with others being rich.

It has to do with policies.

Originally Posted by Grant

No, the point was that those who become wealthy tend to spend their more wisely and invest more wisely. They know that money is a tool.

Sorry, the notion that poor people can be rich too, if they just wisely spend their pennies, is ludicrous. The U.S. not only has more income inequality than other advanced countries but also has lower mobility.

The poor have less access to quality schools. They have less access to college education and fewer job opportunities. To say that all they have to do is spend wisely like wealthy people is false on inspection.

The rich have more disposable income, so they don't have to spend it all -- that's why the p% of income consumed is lower.

Last edited by MTAtech; 06-15-15 at 11:41 AM.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

Certainly government policies can have an effect on the economy but in a free economy, which is largely shrinking due to government policies, people have the opportunity to work their way up the 'economic ladder'.

Sorry, the notion that poor people can be rich too, if they just wisely spend their pennies, is ludicrous. The U.S. not only has more income inequality than other advanced countries but also has lower mobility.

If you feel that's true, what changed in America, once the happiest and wealthiest country in the world?

The poor have less access to quality schools.

Of course. Thats whay charter schools or school vouchers are essential to turning the situation around. Curtailing the power of Teachers Unions would also be pf help by restricting them from making any political donations.This should be left to the individual.

They have less access to college education and fewer job opportunities. To say that all they have to do is spend wisely like wealthy people is false on inspection.

College educations have become less valuable in the marketplace because colleges have become areas of indoctrination rather than education. This also completely overlooks tradespeople and the blue collar worker who tend to do very well and may also be very entrepreneurial.

The rich have more disposable income, so they don't have to spend it all -- that's why the p% of income consumed is lower.

Clearly. But no matter our income we can also save and learn to invest wisely, whether it's using our time wisely, educating ourselves through the financial section of the media rather than the sports or celebrity sections, and so on, searching out bargains, or just checking where we can get the best return on our savings. Millions of people have achieved middle class status, and more, by using a common sense approach.

"Certainly government policies can have an effect on the economy but in a free economy, which is largely shrinking due to government policies, people have the opportunity to work their way up the 'economic ladder'."

Which government policies, specifically, are shrinking the private sector?You do realize that the economy is not shrinking but rising? Moreover, economic mobility in America is mostly a myth but I am sure this won't rock your Horatio Alger rags-to-riches fantasy.

"If you feel that's true, what changed in America, once the happiest and wealthiest country in the world?"
To explain what has changed, I first have to explain what it was like. The middle-class society didn't evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s.

The great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; and counter-change politics of movement conservatism played an important role in rising inequality since the 1970s. It's important to know that no other advanced economy has seen a comparable surge in inequality -- even the rising inequality of Thatcher's Britain was a faint echo of trends here.

Because of movement conservative political dominance, taxes on the rich have fallen, and the holes in the safety net have gotten bigger, even as inequality has soared. And the rise of movement conservatism is also at the heart of the bitter partisanship that characterizes politics today.

"Thats (sic) what charter schools or school vouchers are essential to turning the situation around. Curtailing the power of Teachers Unions would also be pf help by restricting them from making any political donations.This should be left to the individual."
No, if you look at the forces behind vouchers and charter schools it is the rich and hedge funds and don't be fooled into thinking that the rich are trying to help the poor, you are naive. You see, giving a poor family a $5,000 voucher isn't going to help them pay for a $15,000 private school. The rich want vouchers to subsidize the schools they already send their children."College educations have become less valuable in the marketplace because colleges have become areas of indoctrination rather than education. This also completely overlooks tradespeople and the blue collar worker who tend to do very well and may also be very entrepreneurial."
I have no idea where you get that idea. College education has become a prerequisite to many entry-level positions. For more advanced positions, masters degrees are required.
"Clearly. But no matter our income we can also save and learn to invest wisely, whether it's using our time wisely, educating ourselves through the financial section of the media rather than the sports or celebrity sections, and so on, searching out bargains, or just checking where we can get the best return on our savings. Millions of people have achieved middle class status, and more, by using a common sense approach."
Great! Who cares if you are poor -- just invest and make a killing -- with money that you don't have to invest! Yes, a handful of media stars make a lot of money. But they are a trivial part of the story.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

It was from Forbes magazine. And the ones who inherited, most had someone in their family who was a first time millionaire. Sam Walton's built such a fortune his kids are still among the riches in the world.